(I have not personally verified the behavior described in that tweet, but if it's true then a lot of the reporting and commentary around this story has left out important details and the actual change is positive for users. Intentionally configured PWAs still work; everything else opens in your default browser, without any potentially unwanted magic.)
Although it’s still great software I’m stopping usage today because a) I refuse to support adobe and b) I’m confident the software will progressively get much worse, so any investment today is a waste of time I should spend finding and learning something else.
I love Sketch but macOS is no longer the OS I spend the most times in, which is Linux and Windows. I'd love for Sketch to be cross-platform, I'd buy one license per year just to support them.
So my only option was Figma and now... Now what? Damn this sucks.
Check out Framer. It's actually a really nice UI/UX and prototyping tool, but is pretty opinionated in how you set up your file (IMO). I used it a lot when I was freelancing because it gave me a little more power than Sketch did, at the time, and was more mature than Figma. They are the one product I know of currently that has web, Windows and Mac clients.
This ^ is what's lead my small sample size of companies to move from Sketch to Figma. The focus on cross platform and ease of use that Figma had really helped drive adoption across a wide range of company sizes which is probably why this is such a logical acquisition for Adobe.
Common things are so obtusely buried in these applications. It's extraordinary the decisions they make.
Maybe there should be a telematics tool for gtk that tracks when a user is clicking around looking for something and treats it like a bug report after a program crash.
Some Non-Obtrusive (very important) dialog says something like "looking for something? Tell us what and where you're expecting it so we can add it".
There's no reason at all things can't be in 2 or 3 places instead of like View / Interface Options / General / Advanced / ... or wherever the hell someone decided to place it.
Another vote for Postmark. It works and it's a paid but relatively affordable service - this is a good thing in this area, as it keeps the spammers out, and means you have real human support. I've not had a problem yet. Same can't be said for SendGrid which is used on some client projects but has sporadic deliverability issues at times.
I've tried to use Darktable as replacement, and there's no comparison in terms of UX and functionality (within the specific use case that Lightroom is intended for).
I'd like to use an open source product, but there is a huge amount of work put into Lightroom (I've been a long time user, and it's very easy to pick a new version and use new functionalities with trivial effort), aimed at making things easy to use for a non-expert, that is hard to match without big backing.
I personally use Darktable to process my raw photos for some time. While I didn't use Lightroom for any considerable amount of time, I've found that Darktable can process relatively modern raw files (A7III in my case) easily and with pretty high quality.
What are you missing especially? It answered all my needs so far.
For some examples you can see https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/ . Some are not processed with Darktable, but all EXIF is intact, so you can check for yourself.
The problem is UX, so it's not missing something in the sense that it's not possible to achieve something, rather, that something is very easy to achieve for somebody who's not an expert.
The last time I've tested Darktable was quite some time ago, but, on top of my head:
- dehazing is super-easy and very effective in LR
- pano stitching
- auto retouching; experts clearly don't care about this, but for a non-expert, it produces an easy base to work on (assuming it has a very solid implementation)
- I remember LR making it very easy to straighten photos by drawing a line with a tool.
I'm sure all of the above "can be done" in any software (in particularly, the last one), but that's not really the point - the point is how easy it is for a non-expert to effectively use all of them. I remember just going through each panel, and applying effects by moving sliders. That's a great UX experience for non-experts - experts can use Photoshop.
I understand for what you saying, but when I started to use Darktable (>=2.4.x and 3.x to be exact), giving an hour of poking allowed me to understand most of its basic operation. So latest iterations of Darktable is not obscure like earlier versions of Blender. It's much more discoverable.
> dehazing is super-easy and very effective in LR
Darktable has a dehaze filter and it works very well, but didn't compare with LR TBH.
> pano stitching
Didn't need it yet, so no comments here.
> auto retouching;
Darktable auto settings for some tools, but I didn't dig deeper since I don't use auto stuff much, TBH.
> I remember LR making it very easy to straighten photos by drawing a line with a tool.
It's exactly the same in Darktable. Plus it has a very solid perspective detection and correction tool.
I'm not a photo pro. Just an enthusiast if you're eager to put a level. I explored Darktable exactly the way you've told. Just open an image, open a category and play with sliders, that's all.
Main thing I find Lightroom is superior compared to Darktable is being able apply adjustments consistently across groups of photos. You might have say 6 photos all taken of the same subject in the same conditions. You adjust one the way you want, and then literally copy and paste the categories of settings from one to all the other photos you want. Darktable doesn't seem to have that sort of workflow to get through hundreds of photos quickly.
This is perfectly doable in Darktable too. You can either save the adjustments you want as a style or just copy the history stack and paste to other images.
I have a Canon point and shoot that I use for underwater photos and Darktable really doesn't cope well with some of the RAW files. I believe it's related to the zoom. I also vastly prefer Lightroom's overall workflow. That may be something that could be fixed with adjustment, though.
I use Darktable. It is not as ergonomic as Lightroom but since it has enough actual functionality I gladly take it over having to deal with all that subscription insanity in general and dealing with Adobe in particular.
I just do not use software that has no perpetual licenses except when required by client and client pays for it.
Last year I used Darktable and Lightroom side by side. They were both steaming piles of crap. Lots of bugs, crashes, and extremely high CPU usages. Darktable was slightly less buggy on MacOS but not much. Lightroom was easier to figure out but I’m not really using anything but basic features on both apps.
I do not remember Darktable ever crashing on me (well I am not professional and maybe not using all the features heavily). Also I use it less than a year, maybe older versions were less stable. I use it on Windows which can be a factor as well.
Similarly I used Darktable under OS X and didn't hit to any bugs. Exporting files require some patience since it maxes all cores at once, but nothing crashed or burned during the journey.
This is now making me worry about what I do next. Will it be possible to revert this madness or is it really time to abandon Firefox?
I know that in the big picture it’s small, but a good part of why the Firefox is the UI. In compact mode, with dark theme, on Linux, Firefox is - for me - the ultimate browser UI that just gets out of my way.
This new “modern” look is oversized, distracting and wastes space. Nobody’s asked for it and the blog post wording really sounds like trying to justify change for the sake of it.
Sad times. What has happened to Mozilla?
Am I making too much of it? Maybe, but it’s certainly not making me “worry less”. It’s filling me with dread. And from the other responses here and on Reddit, it’s clear Mozilla is out-of-touch with it’s biggest users.
Overall, I think the new version looks better. The only thing I don't get is why they made the tabs into floating buttons with empty vertical space on both sides. On the one hand, I think it looks nicer than the current tab bar, but I don't see what UI/UX purpose it serves to change such a fundamental affordance. (Maybe someone knows?) I feel like they could modernize the tab bar while still keeping it a tab bar.
I don't see how anyone can give you useful information without knowing more about the pipeline and the projects, and as everyone's pipelines/projects are going to work differently (I do web dev work, so pipelines are relatively simple, I can imagine that a game dev team creating Windows/Mac/Linux builds might have multi-hour pipelines though).
Anyway as the question is "How Long Is Your CI Process", here we go!
I have two main types of pipelines, both running on a self-hosted GitLab instance which runs on an 8th-gen i3 Intel NUC. No project is particularly massive.
1. PHP Projects. Run PHPStan + unit tests on each branch. Most projects take 1-5 mins. On master, run PHPStan + unit tests, build a Docker image, and use Helm to deploy to managed Kubernetes on DigitalOcean. This takes 5-10 mins.
2. React Projects, again not massively huge, but sizable. Biggest time is to run ESLint on every branch. About 5 mins (due to very poor caching which I keep meaning to fix). On master, run ESLint, create a Docker image, and deploy to managed Kubernetes. 5-10 mins.
There are opportunities to improve this by fixing/optimising caching. Overall I'm reasonably happy with the pipeline performance. I'm also sure that upgrading the hardware would make a big difference, probably more so than fixing the caching; an i3 isn't really ideal but this machine does well overall for my small team.
Computing is cheap these days. If somewhere has a multi-hour build, that is a noxious build system smell. Run away. Or make sure the role involves you getting paid to optimize it. If a build takes 2 hours, and you work 8 hours days, it means you get four tries in one day to get it right? Four!
That is no way to do modern computing. Things were worse back in the day (we compiled uphill, both ways), but we're not in those days any more. Buy bigger & faster servers with more RAM until the problem goes away. It won't necessarily be cheap. But if the company is too stingy, and would prefer to be pennywise and pound foolish (saving "pennies" on a server vs developer time to sit there waiting for "compiles"), you don't want to work there.
What drives me a bit nuts is when dynamically evaluated languages (which theoretically punt their compilation to lazy on-demand runtime compilation/evaluation) become monstrosities in the build cycle complete with painfully slow compilation and package resolution.
The feature releases don’t show up in GitLab’s RSS now... why not? Can’t find any way to subscribe to them.
13.9 didn’t appear and I had to go looking. 13.10 hasn’t either. Blog “news” posts, unfiltered and patch releases all show up in RSS... why aren’t the monthly releases being included anymore?
I was subscribed to https://www.gitlab.com/atom.xml - at least, that's what Feedly's UI shows, but that URL doesn't seem to resolve at all. In my Feedly, the newest article was "building a better Heroku".
When you search for GitLab in Feedly, you also see that feed, without the 13.10 post. The "GitLab" source at top of search results shows "about.gitlab.com", 6k followers, but no 13.10 post.
I've directly added your atom.xml link so my situation is resolved for now. Thanks!
(I have not personally verified the behavior described in that tweet, but if it's true then a lot of the reporting and commentary around this story has left out important details and the actual change is positive for users. Intentionally configured PWAs still work; everything else opens in your default browser, without any potentially unwanted magic.)